Accidental Shop Lifting

[hightail]

Total Value of Goods £6.99

 

Recovered goods -£6.99

 

Value of unrecovered/unfit goods £0.00

 

Can somebody please explain why they put this on their invoices? Leaving aside for the moment that the whole thing is a [problem] and all figures except these are plucked out of the air, the shop hasn't lost the retail price of any unrecovered/unfit goods. As this is the only part of these invoices which have some basis in reality surely they should only be looking to recover a wholesale cost.

[mightymouse_69]

Definition of to steal

 

1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

 

Yes, but the definition of theft is, as Hightail says:

 

 

dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.

 

Red = Actus reus

Blue = Mens rea

 

In this case, the actus reus is satisfied. But as you correctly said, the requisite intention (dishonesty) was lacking.

 

I was not saying you were wrong, just being picky to a strict legal sense.

[hightail]

I never said it but I am in agreement There has to be an intention to permanently deprive. If the simplistic definition of taking (the property of another) without right or permission were enough then the offence of taking without consent wouldn't ever be needed.

[pinklily]

I had a letter from the Public Prosecution Service today

 

It reads

 

Dear Sir madam

 

I am writing to notify you that the prosecution service has decided, having considered the evidence currently available, not to prosecute you in relation to an incident on 8th day of April 2010 for which papers were submitted to our offices by the police.

 

Therefore no crime has been committed?

 

If no crime has been committed I will certainly NOT be paying RLP anything.

[bigsteve0000]

I had a letter from the Public Prosecution Service today

 

It reads

 

Dear Sir madam

 

I am writing to notify you that the prosecution service has decided, having considered the evidence currently available, not to prosecute you in relation to an incident on 8th day of April 2010 for which papers were submitted to our offices by the police.

 

Therefore no crime has been committed?

 

If no crime has been committed I will certainly NOT be paying RLP anything.

 

It dosnt say no crime has been commited just that theirs not enough evidence to prosicute.

[mightymouse_69]

Or that there is enough evidence but the case failed the public interest test.

[JonCris]

I had a letter from the Public Prosecution Service today

 

It reads

 

Dear Sir madam

 

I am writing to notify you that the prosecution service has decided, having considered the evidence currently available, not to prosecute you in relation to an incident on 8th day of April 2010 for which papers were submitted to our offices by the police.

 

Therefore no crime has been committed?

 

If no crime has been committed I will certainly NOT be paying RLP anything.

 

Great If after you tell them RLP persist & refuse to remove your data from their data base contact me

[pinklily]

Thank you Joncris I will do so.

 

 

Bigsteve and Mightymouse. What I meant was ( forgive me here as I have no experience and little knowledge of the law) I was not charged and will not be prosecuted so technically in the eyes of the law nothing happened. Therefore what right have RLP to take me to task. It was accidental and obviously the prosecution have taken this into consideration. RLP have judged me guilty with no legal right to do so. I gave them information under duress which, had I not done so, they would not have been able to contact me at all.

[bigsteve0000]

sorry pinklily I might have been a bit blunt. But you may find RLP use that argument with you. The trouble is the proof required for a criminal conviction is greater than that for a civil prosecution. The judge makes a decision based on a balance of probabilities. You would probably stand a good chance in a civil court but RLP will argue not. Of course they will threaten and blather and then pass you on to one of the debt recovery criminals (sorry companies) as there is to much potential for them to loose money here.

[mightymouse_69]

Although the CPS has decided not to prosecute, this will not mean that a civil action against you should fail. I may damage someones car accidently - the CPS may not prosecute for criminal damage but it wouldnt stop the car owner seeking a civil remedy.

 

I would expect that RLP would not be trying to show that you stole... but that you somehow caused them loss which you should pay back. Quiet how they justify this is, in most cases, beyond me!

 

However, as you say -the fact that no criminal charges are being bought does seem to suggest that another person has looked into this in a legal context, and for one reason or another decided that you should not be prosecuted.

 

I suspect that this development should not alter the advice you have been given, which is probably not to pay.

[Naxxas]

Although the CPS has decided not to prosecute, this will not mean that a civil action against you should fail. I may damage someones car accidently - the CPS may not prosecute for criminal damage but it wouldnt stop the car owner seeking a civil remedy.

 

I would expect that RLP would not be trying to show that you stole... but that you somehow caused them loss which you should pay back. Quiet how they justify this is, in most cases, beyond me!

 

However, as you say -the fact that no criminal charges are being bought does seem to suggest that another person has looked into this in a legal context, and for one reason or another decided that you should not be prosecuted.

 

I suspect that this development should not alter the advice you have been given, which is probably not to pay.

 

 

good news common sense has prevailed from the CPS, however RLP claim their crap is seperate from any "criminal" proceedings for the same issue.

 

advice remains, do not pay.